Intelligent Design - the Creationists' Latest Wheeze

[Glenn Scheper]

That was a good Zizek post. I like him a little.
> http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2005-01/zizek.htm
> [T]here is a radical anti-empiricism at the heart of belief,

another post:
> ... morality the natural outgrowth of [religion].

and:
> Religions are Fairy Tales.

> Faith is absolute belief in something for which there is
> zero evidence.

> Intelligent Design is pseudo-science.

I was raised a weak atheist, believing religions are fairy tales.
Then I had my acute psychosis, with a big dose of direct gnosis
of God--a very fearsome, symbolic and undescribable experience.
Now, after nearly 30 years, I have found my place and my fellows
in the abject and their literature leavings--and conclude that
we in the gnow are essentially different, aliens among everyday
humankind. And as you know from my posts, our sexuality is taboo.

The exoteric pistic (faith) church severed out gnosis (knowing)
in the fourth century, and has only the slightest trace, I may
even say, mere mimicry, of all that is spiritually available.
Its pseudo-science and morality is the handmaiden of humanism.

Even further from gnosis than faith, science so-called is based
upon the principle of Cartesian doubt, even an antonym of faith.
And upon that foundation of doubt, you have the "illumination"
so-called of the renaissance, and a further humanist viewpoint
and search for "freedom" from the French revolution and onward,
and by science, mastery over things, making for predictability,
production and market success, and great wealth. Anti-Christ.

In that regard, I happened upon this in Inferno: Canto XXXI
 For where the argument of intellect
 Is added unto evil will and power,
 No rampart can the people make against it.

I would claim that this scripture (many cite for how to know)
is in fact a condemnation of the non-gnostic science of doubt:

Isaiah:
28:7 But they also have erred through wine,
and through strong drink are out of the way;
the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink,
they are swallowed up of wine,
they are out of the way through strong drink;
they err in vision,
they stumble in judgment.
28:8 For all tables are full of vomit and filthiness,
so that there is no place clean.
28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge?
and whom shall he make to understand doctrine?
them that are weaned from the milk,
and drawn from the breasts.
28:10 For precept must be upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little:
28:11 For with stammering lips and another tongue
will he speak to this people.
28:12 To whom he said,
This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest;
and this is the refreshing:
yet they would not hear.
28:13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept,
precept upon precept;
line upon line,
line upon line;
here a little,
and there a little;
that they might go,
and fall backward,
and be broken,
and snared,
and taken.

Elsewhere, "caution" (science/market skills) of men is condemned too.

A good lesson can be had by Googling: deduction induction abduction

http://seamonkey.ed.asu.edu/~alex/pub/Peirce/Logic_of_EDA.html

http://tesugen.com/archives/05/08/inductive-deductive-abductive
 Abductive reasoning,
 as described by Darden professor Jeanne Liedtka,
 embraces the logic of what might be.

Google deduction induction abduction marble, for specific treatises:

 http://tesugen.com/archives/05/08/inductive-deductive-abductive
 Abduction is a sibling of induction and deduction and
 Peirce is its philosophical father.
 If a bag contains red marbles and you take out one marble,
 you may infer that the marble is red.
 This is deduction.
 If you do not know the color of the marbles in the bag and
 take out one marble and it is red,
 you may infer that all marbles in the bag are red.
 This is induction.
 But if a bag of red marbles is standing at some place and a
 red marble lies in the vicinity of the bag,
 you may infer,
 that the marble is from the bag.
 And that is abduction.

I might say the hard things of science require deduction, and
the softer things (probability & statistics) induction, but we
all rely upon abduction all the time--unprovable opinions.

I am guided by unprovable insights, such as dreams, heard words,
and subtle clues. Such confirm to me a concerned, involved God.

Check out this one of my dreams/visions: (warning: lewd)
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/2005-04-06.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/2005-04-08.htm

These were three months before Katrina, and you can see I tried
to wrest interpretions in the symbols of tantric interest to me.

But clearly, they were a perfect prophecy of the SuperDome time:
Specific NOLA related words: Mardi Gras, "your hotel (superdome)
is retro (behind) canal (a street)" and "You must give up this
muse (another street; or may be the spirit of NOLA)". Also the
intent to pick up a rider, inability to phone, a railing in the
hotel's entryway--as would be in a stadium's entryway, inability
to exit a fence around the hotel, and hearing "God help us!"
--all very specific for the NOLA disaster three months later.

Such things, though not peer-repeatable, are NOT "zero evidence".

Yours truly,
Glenn Scheper
http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/
glenn_scheper + at + earthlink.net
Copyleft(!) Forward freely.